Fascinating interview with professor on consciousness

I think folks who believe psychedelics can produce insane beliefs should try it themselves instead of assuming.

Agreed. People who think that shit tastes like shit should eat shit.

Hollywood movies, cartoons and TV shows do not accurately portray the psychedelic experience; there is also not much mention of how practically every ancient culture in the world used them. It seems to receive the most backlash from those that haven't tried them. This is not to say that those who reject them are somehow inferior or ignorant; it is more that the repulsion would only make sense if the person had tried them and hated them.

GoatLord said:

I think folks who believe psychedelics can produce insane beliefs should try it themselves instead of assuming.

Not rejecting psychedelics, I believe they can be of great benefit in moderation. That's why the war on drugs is so wrong-headed: it denies people access to something that has been historically of great benefit for personal, spiritual and artistic insight.

It's only when they're used excessively that they're a problem. That's the path that leads to insanity. Denying that they even have the capability to lead to insane beliefs is dangerously naive.

GoatLord said:

Hollywood movies, cartoons and TV shows do not accurately portray the psychedelic experience; there is also not much mention of how practically every ancient culture in the world used them. It seems to receive the most backlash from those that haven't tried them. This is not to say that those who reject them are somehow inferior or ignorant; it is more that the repulsion would only make sense if the person had tried them and hated them.

So only people who has taken psychedelic drugs are allowed to have a negative opinion about them?

EDIT: Also, what fraggle said.

No, what I'm saying is, ANY opinion of psychs will only carry weight if the person holding the opinion has some level of understanding of the subject matter. Posting clips from "Fear and Loathing" or saying " People who think that shit tastes like shit should eat shit" demonstrates a general lack of knowledge of the subject matter, so such opinions carry little weight. Someone who has experimented with a substance--not simply paraphrased segments of a trip from an erowid anecdote or watched a movie about drugs--will automatically have a more rational opinion of the experience, whether it was positive or negative.

Unless said experience puts you in the psych ward, then you wouldn't have a rational opinion about anything. Having had the experience of some of these substances myself, I would not recommend them to anyone whatsoever despite enjoying many of them. I've seen something as relatively simple as pot turn rational people into a paranoid mess on several occasions. I don't want to backseat mod, but this is a forum about Doom (despite this being EE) and there are many forum users here who are are not even at legal drinking age, so I personally would ask you to keep your drug crap off of here and go to a board which is about the subject at hand.

I didn't mention psychs, someone else did. It was brought up for no productive reason.

And even in the case of "moderate" use there can be completely different opinions. One of the biggest problems about psychedelics is that the effect varies wildly, and experiences can differ a lot depending on the individual, as glenzinho said. For example, I've been a cannabis user for more than 10 years, and I haven't had any "major problems" with it, but I've seen people that turn into fucking beasts with just one puff.

Ask 10 different drug users their opinion about conciousness, and you're likely to end up with 10 different answers.

That's why a "neutral" opinion on the matter could be more useful.

That's my two cents on the matter.

GoatLord said:

I didn't mention psychs, someone else did. It was brought up for no productive reason.

You didn't have to. Your reputation precedes you and this kind of thing you post always descends into talk about psychedelics and occasionally about sticking cables up your arse. Bloodshedder's response early in the thread sums it up perfectly. Kids, say no to GoatLord!

But getting back to the subject at hand ... Consciousness is difficult to describe on any appreciable level. Even now, with all of our brain scanning technology, we have nothing to say on what's known as the subjective experience of being alive. Therefore, any insane idea someone has about consciousness should at least be considered before putting aside.

An insane idea such as, "The Earth is only 6,000 years old" can be immediately put aside because we've demonstrated to ourselves--pretty sufficiently I'd say--that it is far older than that. Another insane idea, such as "Mermaids are real," hasn't been outright disproven, but what we know about biology doesn't suggest the need to spend lots of time and money trying to verify the validity of such a claim.

However, a claim such as, "Maybe consciousness is..." tackles a subject on which almost nothing is known. If someone's view on consciousness challenges current paradigms, that might be a good thing. It might also be total horse shit. In either case, you risk a potentially good theory going unused if your go by a kneejerk reaction. The fact that I have trouble agreeing with this professor on some of his more mystical opinions is exactly what drew me to his talk. It made me uncomfortable.

glenzinho said:

...Ad occasionally about sticking cables up your arse. Bloodshedder's response early in the thread sums it up perfectly. Kids, say no to GoatLord!

So, not only do I not ever talk about that, but the closest thing I've mentioned was edible computers, of which rudimentary varieties currently exist.

GoatLord said:

Posting clips from "Fear and Loathing" or saying " People who think that shit tastes like shit should eat shit" demonstrates a general lack of knowledge of the subject matter, so such opinions carry little weight. Someone who has experimented with a substance--not simply paraphrased segments of a trip from an erowid anecdote or watched a movie about drugs--will automatically have a more rational opinion of the experience, whether it was positive or negative.

When John Romero finds the Daikatana, I want you to throw the NeXSTEP into the tub!

Well aren't you a special acid-tongued snowflake? Never assume what others have and haven't done. This isn't the place to autistically describe every minute detail of your super transcendental universe changing reality altering other worldly astral plane traveling mystical voyage alpha to the omega microcosmic to the macrocosmic ADONAI YAHWEH TETRAGRAMMATON experience in all it's grandiose narcissistic glory.

GoatLord said:

I didn't mention psychs, someone else did. It was brought up for no productive reason.

It was brought up because it's a prelude to every thread you make on the nature of existence/consciousness.

It was not a prelude here. I posted this because I think the talk was interesting.

Your reputation supersedes you.

Okay, fair enough. But it's not really logical to complain about a particular subject being discussed when the person being complained about didn't even mention it. I have been toning down such discussions, but there are antagonistic types who feel the need to bring it up. I find that inappropriate.

GoatLord said:

Hollywood movies, cartoons and TV shows do not accurately portray the psychedelic experience; there is also not much mention of how practically every ancient culture in the world used them. It seems to receive the most backlash from those that haven't tried them. This is not to say that those who reject them are somehow inferior or ignorant; it is more that the repulsion would only make sense if the person had tried them and hated them.

Mate, all we need to do is observe the effects they have on you. I don't think you are a stupid person at all but what you are doing here is mental masturbation. You post all these threads about consciousness/AI that cannot be proven/disproven and expect us to care after the 4th thread. The impression you give me with these threads is that you are too lazy to do any meaningful research and instead resort to taking drugs because it makes you look "alternative" and more "authentic" so forgive me if I think that you come across as pretentious and even a bit narcissistic.

If you truly care about these subjects, start reading books/essays on the matter. A lot of very smart people have written about this in the past. Most of them haven't reached an undisputable conclusion because the subject matter is so complicated but I am sure they would be able to set you on the right path to find your own conclusion. I can't recommend what you should read because I am not that interested in the subject matter but I am sure you could find a lot of information in Freud's and Carl Jung's writings so that could be a good start.

Do I think psychedelics are a good way to make you wiser/whatever? Sure, but I think they can only enhance what you already have which is why, as I mentioned in one of your previous thread, these experiences should not be readily accesible to just anybody and should be made in the company of a skilled professional (like a psychologist) after having read some books/essays and after some mental preparation. These substances need to be treated with respect.

As it stands, you just seem quite lost to me. What you are doing is thinking you have a destination (but you actually don't), speeding 120 MPH in you car in the first direction you see. Sure you might get SOMEWHERE but the chances of getting NOWHERE and crashing are much higher. Before using a car, you need a direction which is what you lack.

I actually have read books on the subjects I speak of. This has nothing to do with being "authentic" or "alternative," whatever that means to you. I discuss these subjects because they are of interest to me. I don't really understand what's narcissistic about that. I don't intend to prove anything, since concepts such as "What is consciousness?" cannot be proven. Is there really such a problem with engaging others in esoteric subject matter? I do this with my friends and family too, and we have interesting, provocative conversations. I don't really see how this is any different.

GoatLord said:

But getting back to the subject at hand ... Consciousness is difficult to describe on any appreciable level. Even now, with all of our brain scanning technology, we have nothing to say on what's known as the subjective experience of being alive. Therefore, any insane idea someone has about consciousness should at least be considered before putting aside.

An insane idea such as, "The Earth is only 6,000 years old" can be immediately put aside because we've demonstrated to ourselves--pretty sufficiently I'd say--that it is far older than that. Another insane idea, such as "Mermaids are real," hasn't been outright disproven, but what we know about biology doesn't suggest the need to spend lots of time and money trying to verify the validity of such a claim.

However, a claim such as, "Maybe consciousness is..." tackles a subject on which almost nothing is known. If someone's view on consciousness challenges current paradigms, that might be a good thing. It might also be total horse shit. In either case, you risk a potentially good theory going unused if your go by a kneejerk reaction. The fact that I have trouble agreeing with this professor on some of his more mystical opinions is exactly what drew me to his talk. It made me uncomfortable.

You're right that consciousness is diffcitul to describe, but plenty of people have had a go, and some of them have, I think, succeeded rather well in articulating various aspects of the phenomenon from a first person perspective

The thing we're currently less clear on is the relationship between the facts captured by these descriptions, and the facts that are revealed by the brain scanning technology you mention, or physical facts more generally.

That said, there are plenty of very sophisticated theories on the relationship between the two, which have been discussed and refined over decades (it was a very hot topic in the latter half of the 20th century).

Plausibly, there are respects in which this question is not apt to be addressed through observation, or experimental means, since - on the face of it - a number of opposed theories will be equally consistent with whatever physical facts we're able to know by these means. A theory's credibility will, then, reside partially in its explanatory potential - that is, to what extent does the identification which we effect when we plug something into "Maybe consciousness is...", best explain those facts about consciousness that we're already apprised of.

I've made it at least part-way through the video - Hameroff doesn't really seem to understand what he calls the 'hard problem' of consciousness, and his view (which, from this presentation, seems like a bit of a fudge) doesn't really address it, so in terms of its explanatory potential it's not without its problems (though, it's not alone there).

You're obviously very interested in consciousness, which is a good thing, I think. So maybe expose yourself to some proper academic work that's pitched at students - there's plenty of it around. This will enrich the stock of concepts that you're able to bring to bear on the issue, and will give you a much better grip on the phenomenon to be explained and the various explanatory options available. The SEP entry is probably a good starting point.

I'll have to take a look at that link, thanks. I think we're on the verge, in the next few decades, of explaining consciousness more thoroughly, but it will probably be far longer before we have anything approaching a fully realized theory.

GoatLord said:

Hollywood movies, cartoons and TV shows do not accurately portray the psychedelic experience; there is also not much mention of how practically every ancient culture in the world used them.

Thankfully, ancient cultures didn't have internet access.

Kontra Kommando said:

"Junkie" should only apply to people who are physically-addicted to substances. More specifically, it should apply to heroine addicts.

I suspect junkies think very little about the origins of consciousness and more about suppressing their own because heroin addiction is so terrible I would not wish it on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

I am highly suspect that there are multiple tiers of consciousness, and that humans represent what might be the middle of the totem pole. There are likely higher levels of consciousness than what human evolution has so far presented, and clearly there are lower levels, like that of apes, dogs, rats, etc. For many people, the line in the sand is drawn with organisms that seem to have a primitive response to external stimuli, particularly with rodents, arachnids, bacteria; organisms that, to us, do not appear to feel pain or make complex decisions.

My consensus is that we have a very crude understanding of consciousness which we primarily apply to ourselves, since we cannot communicate with other organisms to any appreciable degree. That to me indicates that the definition of consciousness is wholly insufficient, and may involve processes beyond self-awareness or decision making. Since I'm frequently opposed to various forms of dualism, and tend to have a unifying view of the Cosmos (which to me makes sense since all material in the universe was apparently once fused into a compact, unimaginably dense nugget), then by definition everything is literally connected.

If everything is literally connected--which is somewhat supported by bizarre quantum processes such as superposition and entanglement--then consciousness may encompass a non-localized process which is embedded in all material at some base level. Kind of like how individual engine parts are useless when isolated, but create a running engine when arranged in a very particular manner. This is analogous to emergent phenomena (such as water molecules only having the property of wetness when there's a large number of them in a given space), but presents two problems: First, we have to ignore who designed the engine, since we have no way of tackling that quandary at all; and secondly, the running engine can be observed by everyone with working eyes, but subjective awareness can only be observed by the person experiencing it.

So, how does this relate to the professor's talk? Well, while he does go into some mystical and esoteric tangents, the idea that there's more to consciousness than raw computation and molecular arrangements is intriguing. It may turn out that abstract laws embedded into elementary particles--strings, even, if they exist--carry with them, always, the potential for novelty, for behavior that appears to exhibit free will (i.e. humans making decisions). On a computational level, the difference between a piece of paper floating in the wind and a human making decisions might boil down to whether or not the variables for potential novelty are being utilized in a perceivable manner.

This concept of consciousness I'm interested in didn't come blind thinking. It is the result of years of hobbyist research.

Fine food for thought. Forgive me to repost a few ideas I've mentioned in one previous conversation with you.

I don't think consciousness is a spectrum from zero to infinity. It must have its lowest boundary, below which it's just "complexity", but not at all consciousness. What you were talking about in the first paragraph of your post sounded like if you were referring to intelligence or complexity, instead of the phenomenon of awareness perceived from first person perspective.

"Consciousness may exist anywhere" is what I'd say at best (not really "consciousness is everywhere in a non-zero level"). I refuse to call everything "partly conscious". That's detracting from the meaning of the term - it's like if you said: "Everything is partly a thing, because everything contains a non-zero level of resembling a thing." That's too abstract and useless.

(Here it is where I stop doubting and start fantasizing.)